The Six Successful Game Elements: Part 2

The first element most successful video games have is preparation. The second element is a sense of space.

Identifying and establishing a sense of space can be a difficult task. Essentially, all a sense of space really is is the confines in which gameplay takes place. For a game like chess, the sense of space is the 8x8 board. A game of monopoly, however, includes both the board, and the social relationship between the players. When you try to identify the simple concept of a sense of space to RPGs, you see that it is a large aspect of the game.

Although many roleplaying games don't have rules for it, there is a large social aspect to the game. The sense of space can be hard to gauge without rules. Does giving the GM's car a jump affect what happens in the game? Does buying snacks for everyone affect the game? Does being a jerk affect the game? All of these things affect the atmosphere of the game and how much fun you get out of the evening, but they can also affect the actual happenings of the game depending upon your group. Ever have a player try to open up a business or gather an army in a dungeon crawler-style game? That's probably because he didn't understand the sense of space.

Without a sense of space, players can really misread things. Rules help a great deal with this, by laying the groundwork for resolving the types of things characters will be doing, but they can only do so much. The setting can also help (and sometimes hurt) the sense of space a player has about the game. Experience playing the game, as a group, is very valuable as well.

The Six Successful Game Elements: Part 1

There are six elements that most successful video games have. I intend on breaking them down, applying them to roleplaying games, and seeing what still fits. The first element is preparation.

Preparation is something the player does before a challenge that has an affect on their odds of success. Interestingly enough, right away there is a difference between video games and tabletop rpgs: Preparation can apply to both your character interacting with the system and you interacting with the GM. The scale of preparation can change depending upon the game. Some preparation is set in stone, usually during character creation, but a lot of it can persist during actual play.

I feel preparation is an important aspect of roleplaying games. Some playstyles have preparation accounting for a majority of their playtime. In fact, it is hard to imagine an rpg without preparation. There can be gaps due to scope, however. For example: When looking at the long-term goal of Rescuing a kidnapped princess, there is usually a lot you can do to prepare. You could ask around for information on your enemy, buy new or specific equipment, or any number of things. A short-term goal of winning the combat you are in can still give you many chances to prepare. Each individual move you make still voices your opinion. Throwing sand in the enemies eye, destroying his potions before he uses them, or deciding who to take out first. Preparation usually breaks down, to a point, on each individual roll (or resolution). Although there are things you can do before you attempt an action, not many rpgs offer you a chance to do specific actions (read: skills) a different way, unless you count GM interaction (usually coupled with a situational modifier for a good or bad idea).

In this element, RPGs are solid. The interaction between the player and GM usually guarantees the ability to prepare, and many if not most systems allow great amounts of preparation (down to the resolution level). I feel as if roleplaying games could benefit from allowing preparation even during resolution, such as offering give and take options, but it is not necessary.

Combat and non-combat skills

Combat and non-combat are generally seen as two different areas of gameplay in a roleplaying game. A lot of the time, the two areas have different paces and different methods of resolution. Even under some universal mechanic, they can still end up feeling very different. Under these circumstances, however, you'll still find them lumped together when it comes to certain aspects of the game. Namely: leveling up.

I've never really understood the reasoning behind the lumping of these two things together. Take D&D for example: You can use a feat and get a +1 to attack or you can spend a feat and gain +3 to the "search" skill. It is your choice to spend your feat in any of many areas, but in the end this ends up making the GMs job harder. Not only does he have to handle the guy who chooses all combat feats, but he also has to deal with the other guys (in the same group) who have chosen half or no combat feats. I've played in games where the disparity between two characters of the same class has been such that one character would clearly die in a given situation and the other would have no trouble overcoming it.

So I come back to the question: Why lump together combat and non-combat gains, leaving the GM to keep track, sort through, and balance each encounter in such a difficult way? I imagine it was done to keep the game simpler. 1 less term to make for nifty little power gains (although they did end up with feats and fighter-feat feats) and a little less work distributing abilities to classes. In the end, it did allow you to take a class that was combat focused to begin with and slowly alter it for a more skill-focused game, but I don't believe that it's worth it.

This brings up something else: How I believe it should work. I think that systems should be designed in such a way that there is a divide between combat and non-combat abilities. This divide ensures that characters are balanced according to their combat abilities and their non-combat abilities, instead of the sum of all of their abilities. This makes all characters relevant both inside and outside of combat. It also makes it a lot easier to have group-based challenges or group-level challenges because everyone is on common ground.

I do think there is an initial opposition to this idea, however. Some people will think that a player who would create "Fred the Fighter" in 3.x, put all of his choices into combat and generally like participating only when something is being hacked up, will be put off by or discouraged in such a system. I, however, believe that his participation will thrive in such an environment. He probably likes to kill things, and would be happy to kill things in most systems, or he likes the challenge of being the best thing killer, in which case he'll still try to "game the system" within the combat choices that he does have. It's a win/win design choice.

RPG Firewalls

There are a lot of things that can get in the way of having a great time while roleplaying; some of them are outside of the system, but some of them are inside. One of these things, for me, is player knowledge. Specifically: giving the player knowledge he must keep separate from his character's knowledge (firewalling). The three main offenders are:


1). Mental attributes that dictate how you act in a non-mechanical way. By this I mean an attribute in an area like "combat intelligence" would probably be fine, whereas one that covers everything under "intelligence" is something will probably cause problems. Not only is it difficult to accurately portray a character with a notable difference in intelligence, but it's also difficult to judge such a difference as authentic. Instead of a rough attribute governing smarts, different areas can be split into knowledge and/or other skills that show understanding (or lack thereof) in specific areas.


2). Alignment that has a mechanical effect or is used in a restrictive manner. By this I mean a general attitude or philosophy on life that is categorized and dealt with as a property during play. Often times a character will be pigeon-holed into a category and the details of what happens and when are often left entirely to the GM. This becomes difficult mostly because of the grouping. It could also be used to predetermine actions or undermine other characters (PC or otherwise). Instead of a vague set a rules, a hard-coded set of actions and the consequences of such actions (or, perhaps, a set of actions linked to personalities) avoids this problem entirely.

3). Monster Manuals that define monsters beyond the fluff. By this I mean a book that lists a monster (troll) and gives you direct mechanics to use trolls (they must be burned to die). I understand the basic goal of the book, I think, which is to shorten the time it takes to prepare a challenging battle, but at the same time provide an interesting and unique encounter. The problem is that it becomes a giant cheat-sheet for players who have either been around the block or want an edge-up on the competition. They also tend to group a race or species into one lump, which is the opposite of what PCs and major NPCs, tend to be. Instead of a statblock set in stone, I think some good fluff with some thought-out guidelines for statting monsters quickly would be much more helpful.

That isn't to say the problem players can't be the source of all your troubles, but sometimes people are just encouraged to do things. You can never really know if Bob pulled out his cold arrow to get rid of the last one, because he dropped an ice-cube on his leg, or because he had read page 156 of the monster manual last night. However, you can always be sure it's not the last one if no such thing existed. Such a task is not to be taken without forethought, though.

Hero Points: Part 3

What the character knows about hero points, in an rpg, greatly affects the 'fiction' of the game. It is important to make sure that your setting and rules are in alignment for your design to keep the behaviors of players in line with the setting's theme or tone. If characters would expect one thing and players another, you've got yourself setup for some immersion disrupting play. However, sometimes it isn't easy to see the impact a particular rule will have upon player behavior. This is why playtesting your roleplaying game is important.

Example: Imagine an rpg with hero points. These hero points are given to all major npcs and the pcs. They allow you to reduce a fatal wound into a minor one as you are being 'hit'. What impact does this have on the setting? It becomes awfully hard to assassinate any prominent figure without a follow-up of some sort. Try to shoot him through the heart? *spends hero point* You'll always slightly miss. In short, a character might want to snipe the king in his courtyard, but once the player realizes this will never work on a prominent NPC, he'll look for other ways to accomplish his task. There is a conflict between the character's and player's line of thought.

How can characters see hero points? One way is to present it as dumb luck. You try to shoot the king, but he suddenly sneezes and is only grazed. This works well in a lower power setting. It also works better the rarer hero point expenditures are. Another way is to present it as pushing yourself beyond your limits. The knight runs you through with his sword, but you press on to finish the fight. This works better in higher power settings. It also pairs up nicely with character motivations or goals. Yet another way is to present it as fate shaping the world. You strike at the malevolent wizard, but it just wasn't meant to be. This works better in settings designed specifically for it.

Hero Points: Part 2

How you earn hero points greatly effects how they are used in the game. Generally, hero point use works a lot like money. If you expect to get more of it, you'll be willing to spend more of it. Some players don't like walking through hoops to earn these points, so trying to stitch a system together with hero points will work with varying results. The difference between handing out points via GM discretion and defining what earns points in the book can make or break the hero point economy. There are a lot of ways to earn hero points:

Example 1: You award points for "good" in-character actions. This is a great way to directly and precisely reward the types of behavior and actions you want to see in the game. Since the GM has full control, he can weigh the actions for himself. As a downside, the GM will need to constantly assess the character's actions and the players might be discouraged if he doesn't discuss what he wants from them.

Example 2: You award points for completing in-game challenges. This type of economy can easily link together the spending of points and the earning of points. Players will spend more during a challenge in which they'll earn those points back. This, however, can greatly affect the balance of the encounter as most great challenges will be met with great point expenditure.

Example 3: You award points for showing up. This type of economy will create an episodic spending habit, especially if there is a limit to holding on to points. It also has little regard for what will be going on in each session, though.

Example 4: Players vote to give each other points. Allotting points in this manner is a hit or miss. If you have a solid group that is close in ideals, points will be abundant and everyone will generally be grateful for the recognition. If your players are varied, points could be scarce and everyone may become bitter for the lack of recognition.

One more part to go, next week.

Designing an RPG: Action Points & Hero Points

Fate points, brownie points, hero points, karma, etc... Under the guise of any name, hero points can be a valuable tool in rpgs. They can link together several different aspects of resolution together into one subsystem. They are often used to reward types of behavior or encourage certain actions. There are 3 things to remember when designing hero points for your system: What they do, how you earn them, and what the character knows.

There are many different things that hero points do, throughout varying systems. Some of them give you bonuses to a roll, some of them let you change or introduce facts normally outside of your control, some of them make you automatically succeed, and some of them let you redo an action completely. The first thing you should do is determine what kind of effect you want out of your hero point mechanic. With that written down, you will be able to determine whether or not anything interferes with it.

Example 1: If your hero points let you automatically succeed at a task, you'll find that you're temporarily changing your resultion system. This can have a negative impact, as you will would be removing challenge (or risk) from the equation. It would, however, ensure that the players get what they want out of a scene (given that it's possible).

Example 2: If your hero points let you introduce or alter facts normally outside of your control, you'll find that you're temporarily changing the role of the player. Be wary of this style of hero points if you favor immersion, as they will likely hinder it. On the upside, hero points of this manner can have a longer-lasting effect on the narrative of the game and can allow the player to directly introduce content he enjoys.

Example 3: If your hero points let you reroll an attempt, you might have a problem with how your resolution system works. Although subtle, you might be introducing a way for the system to look deadly while still allowing the PCs to survive easily. On the other hand, mechanics like this can go a great deal with showing how determined a character is and gives players another chance to see a course of action to the end.

Example 4: If your hero points give you a bonus to your roll, you might be looking for a light touch. Big bonuses start to creep into *automatic success* territory; small bonuses might have a negligable effect. These type of hero points are affected largely by the other factors of hero points.

Next section is due next week.

Mechanical Character Advancement

Mechanical character advancement is useful. The longer you plan on playing the same campaign, the more useful mechanical character advancement is to the system. Without it, you will be stuck playing the same game, over and over again. A large portion of board games also feature mechanical advancement. I believe it is an important part of RPGs and RPG design. Why is mechanical character advancement useful?

One way it is useful is to keep the mechanical aspect of the game from being repetitive. By constantly changing, the mechanics are able to keep a fresh face. This also allows a system to offer mechanical choices throughout play, rather than just during character generation. It also allows the PCs to adapt to current and future situations. For example, a party that is going to be stuck in the desert for a long time has the option to learn survival skills, but also has the option to do without. Without mechanical character advancement, they would be stuck with the skills they had at creation.

Another way it is useful is by showing the mechanical growth of a character in comparison to himself or to another person. Revisiting an old challenge or rival is a great way to show how hard you've been working in the meantime. By showing growth, you lend verisimilitude to rising scales of action. As such, mechanical growth can be a great pacing mechanic for a campaign, especially if advancement is capped.

Mechanical character advancement is not without baggage. Along with it comes issues of balance . Any sort of staggered progress of advancement leaves an opportunity for exploitation. However, if advancement is done in parallel, it can become trivial. Advancement caps may or may not seem right, but a setting is more difficult to use without caps. Without proper consideration, mechanical character advancement may become nothing more than a bait and switch tactic.

Short games, such as those intended for one-shots, work well without mechanical advancement. For longer games, mechanical advancement is almost required to hold interest and to maintain an active setting. If you choose to include mechanical character advancement into your rpg design, make sure to highlight the reasons for its inclusion. If it's there to justify costume changes or sell splat books, you might be better off working on an interesting challenge subsystem.

Mechanic Design: Character Skills

Depending on how you play, skills can be a large part of your game. In some cases, they are seperated into combat skills and non-combat skills. In other cases, they are entirely different systems. When designing a skill system for an RPG, it is important to remember that you have many choices to make.

Listed Skills versus Player-Made Skills
One choice you need to make is whether to have a list of skills at all. You don't need a giant list of skills to have a skill system. Players can create their own skills during character creation, and perhaps even during character advancement. The main benefit of a list of skills is that the game can be played sooner and generally with less effort than a game where the players have to make their own skills. In addition, a list of skills can ensure that your setting is reinforced and that roles or niches are filled. It is difficult to say what the main benefit of skills made by the player is, but I believe it has to do with flags. Players make the skills for the action they want to see in the game, so they are directly involved in choosing the content of the game (as long as the GM follows through). Some downsides to a list of skills are that it can be difficult to modify and content may be created from the skill list that players do not want to play. Some downsides of player-made skills are the chance that an area of content won't be covered by a character's skill and some skills will be more powerful than others.

Described versus Undescribed
Another choice you have to make is the level of detail to describe your skills. This is mainly for RPGs with a list of skills, but might apply to player-created skills. Descriptions aren't required at all. The main benefit of having detailed descriptions is the ability to settle disputes with the book rather than negotiating with players. Having descriptions really lets the players know what they can expect to do with certain skills and gives the GM a better idea of what things are taking place in the setting. On the flipside, leaving a skill descriptionless will allow them to be flexible, and should open up the imagination of the players and GM. This may cause some skills to overlap.

Broad versus Narrow
Yet another choice is how broad or narrow of an action do you want your skills to cover. Again, this is mainly for described skills, but might have an effect on the naming of undescribed skills. Broad skills generally means that you will need a smaller list, because each skill covers more area. It also could mean, for example, that anyone good at moving quietly can also hide in shadows well. Narrow skills generally means that you will need a bigger list, because each skill covers less area. List size can have a large effect on how mechanically balanced your list is. Narrow skills work better if you need to create highly specialized character concepts. Broad skills work better if you just need to fill roles or niches with groups of abilities.

One important thing to keep in mind during this whole process is "What problems do my skills actually solve?" The situation that a skill resolves and the situations you expect to arise in play should be the same. One famous example of this not being the case is 3.X diplomacy. The skill is setup to decide whether or not you can convince an NPC to change his disposition towards you, but gives little in actual detail of what gets accomplished. In effect, the PCs are asking "Do we convince the King to let us into the vault?" and the skill is saying "The King is now friendly towards your group". In the end, it comes back to the GM to decide. I believe the skill needs to be re-designed with the situation it wants to solve directly in mind. That may be the case with 4e, anyhow.

NPC Creation

NPCs are not only an important part of the game, but they are such a large part of the game that any noticible improvement is going to make an impact. Recently, some 4e propaganda stated that NPC creation would be streamlined, and take only a fraction of the time to complete. Seeing as this is one of the big complaints/factors for prep-time, this would be a great accomplishment for the series... but how do you go about streamlining a process when the finished product is a living, breathing character?

One important factor in reducing the time it takes to make an NPC is rules knowledge. The more rules you can recall, the faster you can recall them, and the quicker you can link bits together, the less time it will take. The main problem here is that this takes time. Any new GM (or old GM with a new system) will need to improve in this area. Depending on the system, it can take a few minutes or a few hours to make a full-fledged NPC.

NPC creation is slowed down by a lot of sequential design, and the restriction of abilities by requisite. Sequential design is when you are required to make a character in order, and often re-evalutate your options, during the many steps of creation. This is usually tied in with the restriction of abilities by requisite. Take for example D&D 3.x. The order you select skills can have an impact on if you qualify to take a prestige class, which you want because many abilities are restricted by class. You cannot simply determine your max skill points and apply them as if you were at the real level you are making the NPC if you want to remain true to the system.

In order to speed up NPC creation, some GMs do not create a complete character. Often, a creature intended for combat will not have a detailed background, and many will not have an extensive list of skills. Similarly, a bartender might be a few skill points at a certain level, and a random commoner might just be a rough voice. Most systems won't interfere with this type of prep, but sometimes PC actions will. It is important to remember that players usually only know what you tell/show them about an NPC. On the same note; reuse, recycle, repackage! Just because the party killed Lord Count Duke doesn't mean you have to burn his statblock and start from scratch.

However, it is important to remember that some things should not be skimped on. Whenever I create an NPC more important than a random commoner, I give him a goal and a disposition towards the party. As such, it can be handy to keep around a list of common goals that the denizens of your setting might have, so you can cycle through them at a moment's notice. Merchant? He's greedy and he expects the party to spend money. Barkeep? He's friendly, but only if the party softens him up with a war-story. Government Inspector? He wants to help his country, but hates anyone who makes his job difficult. You should also remember to use a variety of... well anything. Every merchant can't be a greedy rat, out only for himself, who hassles the party to buy and scoffs at their attempts to haggle.

Game Design: Locked Doors

A locked door... it's an obstacle that is commonly used in RPGs. Doors were designed to keep people out, among other things. It is generally the case that DMs who use a locked door actually wants the party to get to the other side! Parts of the adventure are on the other side of that door, after all. However, a common occurance in this situation is the PC's failure to open the door to access that adventure. This can be a problem.

First, a little explanation. Why does the DM lock the door if he wants the party to go through the door? There could be several reasons. Locked doors are used to protect treasure. However, the case may be that the DM doesn't want the party to just get that treasure without earning it. Without the chance of failure, the success of the party would mean nothing. Replace "treasure" with "the rest of the adventure" and you have a big problem.

It is my belief that the system can be blamed for this sometimes, but the DM can also take blame for not recognizing the problem. I also believe that the system can help solve this problem if you take a long look at it. The problem can occur because:

1: There is only 1 solution to a given problem presented to the PCs
2: The problem presented to the PCs MUST be solved to continue the adventure
3: The way the problem is solved is left to chance, instead of choice (or trade-off)

I don't see anything above that can't be solved with preparation and the right system. (1) By overlooking a challenge before you use it in play, you can determine how it can be solved, and make sure that there can be more than one approach. Just having 2 solutions greatly reduces the chances of the PCs being stuck behind the door. (2) You can also take a step outside of the obstacle and see if there is any way the PCs could continue without solving the problem. (3) This is the option I have been focusing on lately.

A lockpicking skill is nice to have, but represents a chance of failure. By allowing the party to bash the door down, but making sure there is a penalty for that action (likely a random encounter, guards being alerted, chance to damage weapons/shoulder) you are allowing the game to continue, the players to make a decision that alters the game, but have still provided obstacles for the PCs. Take a good look at the list of skills in the system you play, what situations those skills handle, and if you can come up with another way those situations could be resolved. It's well worth the effort.

Powers that change RPGs

A while ago, when I talked about 2-d, 3-d, and 4-d powers, I made note that 4-d powers often skipped, bent, or broke parts of the system. I'd like to detail this a little more, as it's important for my game. Here is a list of powers that don't work for my game and others:

Flight AKA Permenantly out of reach
Usually one of the earliest powers to be obtained. Flight is most often broken because of the divide of melee and ranged weapondry. Combined with forms of missile protection, it creates a hard to overcome challenge, especially for the level. In addition, it allows its users to take odd entrances and overcome nearly any kind of terrain or simple trap.

Teleportation AKA Always where you need to be
Quite often a power that's a while down the road, teleportation always seems to come in handy. It has a slight overlap with flight in that it overcomes nearly any terrain. It has the added bonus of protecting the user from anything that might have occured while normally traveling between A and B, it keeps the travel itself a secret, and makes outright impossible travel, possible. Time becomes less of a concern when you can be anywhere in 6 seconds.

Instant death AKA You lose
If there's anything that is the blunder of game design, it's the instant death effects. Most combat games revolve around resources, such as hitpoints, or scales, such as wounds, to determine when combat is over. Then mid-high level comes along and tells you that you can win in a single roll. Hitpoints? They don't matter anymore. Why do so many games create a balance, only to throw it away?

Immunity to X AKA Fire? What fire?
I think there is no larger source of metagaming than awesome monster abilities, such as immunity to X. Immunities, plain and simple, remove options from combat. You can't use fire to kill a magma troll. It doesn't matter if your fire can ignite time on fire. It's even worse when someone regenerates from an immunity (because you not only stop moving forward, you take a step back).

Invisibility AKA 1 rank of this beats 10,000 ranks of that
Sort of a continuation of immunities. Invisibility is another absolute that defeats something totally. No matter how good your eyesight is, invisibility is better. This also covers another area, however, that is important to note. Skill replacement is poor design, in my opinion. One invisibility spell and you can stop increasing your hiding skill. A logical power, but it's not going to help balance at all.

Anti-magic shell AKA Your shinies don't work here
There seem to be 2 purposes to this effect. One is a great defense for fighters against spellcasters, albeit a harsh one. The other is just a general "You've got stuff that can instantly win, so let me take that away". Sort of like a patch to repair a broken game. Everyone and their grandma will have these at the most inconvenient times. By default, all shops are built around anti-magic areas.

Time manipulation AKA no no no, that didn't happen
A harder power to swallow and usually not received until the end of a campaign. Not only can time manipulation get confusing, but it can turn tabletop rpgs into console rpgs. Time manipulation is like a save point that can be returned to again and again (so long as you live, I guess). It can quickly turn into a chest beating contest, as each time through the same place has great potential for one-upmanship.

Shapechanging AKA I'm that other guy
This power is another one that overlaps with a recurring theme. Shapechanging is often poorly conceived in many games. Some systems give you powers of the things you turn in to (logic getting in the way sometimes), while others do not. Either way, you're stepping on the toes of the disguise skill, and perhaps others as well (ever have someone shapechange into an enemy guard and waltz into the headquarters?). If I've learned anything from Marvel, it's that a correctly timed shapechange screws everything over. I can't even count the amount of times it's been the focus of a plot!

Creation AKA Easy money making game
A handy power that many people ignore. Its abuse has a long history, however. There are stories upon stories of players trying to scam merchants and it all weighs down the setting. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a redeeming quality that keeps this effect from the garbage heap. It's most often taken by a player who wants to walk the fringe of the rules or use player knowledge in the game (and likely both), so he has the perfect item in any situation.

Bind* AKA You lose a turn
There is nothing more prescious than your turn in combat. Without your turn, you can't win. This is especially true when one side is outnumbered. Beyond that, it takes a player out of combat and more or less out of the game. That is one of the last things you want to do. I do, however, believe that this power can be used in limited forms. At a minimum, it should require someone losing their turn for every turn they want someone else to lose. There are still issues to be had, but that's more on the balancing side of discussion.

Acceleration AKA I do more stuff
Another junt off to the side, this time from a one-two combo of time manipulation and binding. Instead of taking the turn away from your enemy, you give yourself an additional turn (likely do 2x as much in 1 turn). Some recent games have significantly reduced this power, but it is still seen. It also creates a divide in playstyles between the GM and player. The GM can often afford to have his npcs use all of their powers at once to win, but the PCs often have to be concerned about the near future.

Confusion AKA unreliable bind/charm
A sidestep on the way back from binding and charming. Confusion removes players from the game and makes someone lose their turn. However, they could also turn on one of their allies. Just another example of logic defeating design.

Summoning* AKA Get him my minions!
Another common power in the fantasy genre, summoning has a whole layer of things it does. It adds another character to your side of the battle and with that character comes additional turns, etc... Sometimes, you are even able to summon thing more powerful than you are to defeat things that you couldn't defeat. However, I do think that this ability could be redeemed if a proper balance of power and cost could be found.

Divination AKA Tell us what to do AKA Tell us what happened
The mother of all DM fiat. Divination spells cross many lines, and brake many barriers. It's used to circumvent investigation skills, and actual investigation effort. It's used to direct the players as the DM sees fit. It's used to keep the BBEG up to date (and it never works on the BBEG... until it suddenly works). A fix it all patch that can bring a campaign to a snail's pace.

That's all for now. Here's looking forward to a whole new year, and a redoubled effort towards my game. Next time, I might take a look at subcategories for some powers, if there are enough things to talk about.

Advancement VS. GM

A GM is supposed to bring about events for the players, and he is to take into consideration the power of the characters to create a challenge that is balanced with that power. I think this belittles the role of character advancement (character power advancement). Following this thought, I can see advancement as having 3 possible roles:

1: Advancement is there so the disparity between two different specialities can grow (ie the wizard gains a lot of new spell power and the ranger gains little in comparison)

2: Advancement is there to confuse the player, who thinks his character is getting stronger, but must actually face an increased challenge and has therefore gained little to nothing (ie it creates the sense of growth, even though it's not really there, raising a sense of [false] accomplishment)

3: Advancement is there for causality, thus completing the cycle of the character doing something and getting better at it (although some games abstract this)

Of course, a game can be made without advancement, but in my experience, the perception of such a game is that of impending boredom. I've never liked some forms of balance. When every mage you ever run into has ability X, because without ability X, your ability Y stops them from taking action Z, it completely diminishes ability Y. I've heard of such things and sometimes it sounds widespread. Perhaps indirect balance would hold up better...

More on tasks and conflict

Okay, more things to be said about task and conflict resolution now that I have seen some interesting things discussed over at therpgsite forum. I see 2 things that conflict resolution advocates are hanging on. The first is just wrong, but still a justifiable way to view task resolution. The second isn't so much a problem with task resolution, as it is a shared problem with the system (or lack thereof).

The first hangup... task resolution leaves the actual resolution up to GM fiat, or that task resolution + GM skills = a means to resolve the conflict, task resolution can't do it alone. This is usually accompanied by an example that shows it was a mistake. The mistake is that the lack of evidence for a task, is the proof that the GM is resolving the issue himself. Such is not the case. Example:

Player: I want to jump over the fence to catch the ship.
What is at stake? Whether or not the character jumps the fence.
Roll: Success, you jump over the fence, but the ship has left the port.

Above is a common example of task resolution and it gives a false appearance. It's a shorthanded way of how things could go, but it isn't really a task resolution system as written. It's a fiat-resolution system. In a task resolution system, a conflict will be resolved according to a number of tasks that is determined by the situation. In the above situation, we are only shown that the player succeeds in jumping the fence. However, task resolution runs almost like a simulation. The GM should be considering:

1: How long does it take to jump over the fence?
2: How long will it take the ship to leave the port?
3: How fast is the character?

All that's left is to simulate the situation by running it out, round by round. Round 1, jump the fence and the crew prepares the boat, round 2, move 120 feet towards boat and the crew opens the sail, round 3, move 120 feet towards the boat and the crew fixates the sail to wind, round 4 boat moves 60 feet away from dock and character realizes he cannot make it. That's task resolution, and it resolved the conflict. Anything else is just someone skimping on the tasks by ignoring them, or (in the case of actual play) the GM skimping on telling the player exactly what task he failed at to accomplish his goal (or, just as likely, the player not noticing he failed a task and thinking the GM just screwed him).

The second hangup occurs when a situation isn't broken down into tasks because there is no 'skill' to cover a task. In dnd, you could want to seduce a barmaid. There is no skill that covers this. If, for every situation, the GM could say "Okay, roll skill X", I don't think other people would have a problem with task resolution.

As it stands in dnd, the GM could ask for a diplomacy roll to seduce a barmaid. It could be broken into several diplomacy rolls, or there could be direct charisma rolls, or opposed charisma versus wisdom rolls. Either way, the main problem is that something a player wants to do isn't covered by the rules, and some GMs will follow the rules (offer a diplomacy roll), but not give the player what they want exactly (you succeed with your diplomacy roll, but she isn't seduced). There's a lack of communication that another 2 successful diplomacy rolls will accomplish his goal, but that lack of communication is only a habit, not a hardcoded part of the resolution system. If the player could be reminded to ask the GM what he must further do to seduce her, or if the GM were to realize that he can't stop talking after he says "but you haven't seduced her", there would be no problem.

In restrospect, the same thing can happens in conflict resolution, people are just ignoring it. Conflict resolution usually works at a scale that is above these things, but that's just another choice.

Player: I want to seduce the barmaid to gain access to the tap.
GM: *thinks* That's too large of a scale, let's say that if you succeed at 3 out of 4 rolls of diplomacy, you will have successfully seduced her.
Player: *rolls once* Success
GM: You haven't seduced her yet...

I'm going to cut it off there, because the only difference between task resolution and conflict resolution, as they stand, is that in task resolution the GM isn't likely to tell you all the tasks you need to accomplish, upfront, in order to succeed. In both cases, the player could roll a success without accomplishing his goal. In both cases, the GM could say that success is not possible and deny the player an opportunity.

Another difference that people might argue, however, is that once it is agreed upon that 3 of 4 successful diplomacy rolls seduces her, the GM cannot go back on that. The same thing applies to task resolution, but there are different cutoff points. After those 3 successes, the barmaid is seduced, but the player wanted access to the tap. The GM could have a fire start and thwart access to the tap anyhow. In task resolution, the GM could interrupt a diplomacy attempt with the fire, because diplomacy takes 2d4 minutes and the fire was set in 5 minutes. Conflict resolution seems to balk at this idea because it usually ignores extra conflicts or it constantly allows the opportunity for content anyhow.

No doubt, if the fire started in conflict resolution after the diplomacy successes, the player would try to put the fire out in time to save the tap, or he would try to access the tap before the fire got to it. Both can be handled by either system.

In task resolution, without being upfront, it is easier to cheat your way out of a situation. In conflict resolution, you know ahead of time what can and cannot happen. In conflict resolution, there is a lot of metagame knowledge thrown about. In task resolution, you never know what could happen. Personally, I don't want to know what can and cannot happen in a given conflict. I do realize that problems can be caused in task resolution when a task is not covered on the character sheet. This is why it is important for everyone to understand the genre, and for the system to handle the genre as a whole.

Character: Tool or Tool

A character is usually a player's only means of affecting the game, so far as the game itself is concerned. If Timmy wants a log for the fire, he uses his character Y'mmit to go get it. In some games, there are other ways, but I'm not concerned with those games at this moment. Timmy exerts control over the world with Y'mmit. How is Timmy supposed to use this power?

The divide: Timmy uses Y'mmit as Y'mmit's personality would have him act or Timmy uses Y'mmit as Timmy wants (to gather fun for himself/the group). I'm not sure if there is a clear side that is taken, or if these are even real sides. The bandwagon side is the latter. Y'mmit is there so Timmy can have fun, everyone likes fun, everybody deserves fun, fun fun fun. If that were the case, then why do RPGs have you create personalities instead of playing as yourself? So people don't get hurt by revealing how they have fun? Perhaps it is just tradition?

I don't care for either side, personally. The first side essentially means you're like a labratory monkey. You've taken the brave trait? Well act brave otherwise you're playing it wrong. Entire campaigns could be played in a matter of a minute. Each player fills out an ordered list of their priorities and tolerances, and the GM creates situations that offer or tax an item from the list. RPing is reduced to following a complicated list in the situation you happen to be in.

The second side isn't much better. You've done a lot of work, and it's either a waste (as fun is given priority) or you're intentionally suffering, trying to find the fun through the maze that is your character's personality. It's also selfish, or at the very least, extremely passive. I'd suggest having everyone list what they enjoy doing and turn it into the GM, but that would kill my fun. I can't have fun knowing that my fun was created with the purpose of funning me.

RPGs seem to be in a murky state regarding this matter. Although some have a list of traits or personalities to choose from, the lack of mechanics backing this (when do I have to be brave?) create a weak use of it. Others rely on another player (GM included) to score you on your use of the trait. Some rely on you to be true to your own character. Although this is the method I side with, it is not without it's faults.

The death of player input

Player input. It is what keeps the 'game' part in rpgs. However, since beginning of rpg campaigns, there have been instances where player input has been taken away or has had no effect. Most roleplayers already know part of what I'm talking about, but there is another part that some people ignore.

Railroading. It has many definitions, but it generally means one player (GM included) taking away the choice, or option of choice, from another player. The party comes to a fork in a dungeon, and the DM describes them taking the left path (or doesn't describe the fork until later, when he mentions they took the left path). This is classic railroading. Not all railroading is bad, but nearly all railroading that is discussed as railroading is bad. The players had no input this matter. This is usually easy to notice.

Illusionism. Often overlooked as harmless, it is defined as the presentation of a choice that has no meaning or where there is only one outcome. The most obvious reason why most people brush this off to the side as harmless, is because it is can be very difficult to detect. Imagine three cups and a ball. The ball is placed under one of the cups so it cannot be seen and the cups are shuffled. You are instructed to pick the cup that has the ball under it. Now imagine that, no matter how closely you watched the cups, the cup you choose will either have the ball or not have the ball based upon what the GM chooses to have happen. That just sounds wrong to me.

In short, I think both railroading and illusionism are the same thing, but are accomplished at a different layer. Railroading and illusionism both kill player input. It doesn't matter if the party always takes the path on the right, the party went left this time (railroading). It doesn't matter that you only got a 6 on your bluff check, he still believes you (illusionism). Why is that part still 'played' if player input doesn't matter?

RPGs slowly creeping into preset group templates?

Sometimes called group template, sometimes called social contract, and sometimes called something else entirely. It's the thing you do so the other people at the table know what you want, what you are going for, or how things are going to work around the table. Few, if any, big commercial rpgs talk about them, but some seem to be slipping in rules to make-up for them. Whether it's incidental or not remains to be seen.

I was listening to fear the boot, episode 19, and they were talking about evil characters. Someone brought up that a paladin cannot adventure with anyone less than neutral in alignment. I think that this was inserted, not because of flavor reasons, but because someone knew that the way a paladin works and the way an evil character works, there is bound to be a situation where they disagree and more or less declare war on each other. That is a rule designed to help players with their group template, whether they knew it or not. The other thing is, once you are to the point of actually making a group template, you're prepared to sidestep that rule and handle it on your own.

Then the whole thing got me thinking about the difference between a played game and a written game. The main differences involve your groups playstyle, the players personalities (including the GM), and a few other things that sort of revolve around a group template (whether it's talked about or not). If you create rules that govern the game just like a group template governs play, you'll create a game that is closer to play as written.

Taking a look back on the system I'm creating, there are several of these kinds of rules. A lot of them come from the setting as well. I seem to have stumbled upon a great combination for the type of system I want and the setting that goes with it.

Attacking defense

Defense has always been an important factor in rpgs... passive defense anyhow. Active defense, meanwhile, is something I think has been tossed aside. Although it remains a part of many rpgs, it's usefullness is questionable. The situations in which you can win by using an active defense (counter-attacking exluded) is rare, to say the least. However, it isn't exactly the fault of defense... it's the fault of offense.

Generally, an rpg will have 1 way to defeat an enemy and 1 alternative. Hitpoints are usually that way (wound levels have the same problem). The alternative is going to be magic and is represented by a death attack causing the instant defeat of an enemy. In such cases, active defense isn't practical. It isn't practical because your opponent isn't going to run out of attacks (also magic usually has no active defense, a whole different can of beans). If your opponent can attack for 1000 straight rounds in combat, that diminishes many of the uses for an active defense.

The solution is simple, right? Limit the amount of times an opponent can attack and you increase the value of active defense manyfold. In theory, it may be simple, but in practice it does take quite a bit of balancing to become effective. The last thing you want is the game to turn from a "wailing-on-each-other" fest into a "defend-until-someone-gets-bored-and-attacks" fest. You also don't want it to take a lot of time to keep track of things, have too many things to keep track of, or to make senseless restrictions. At the same time, it's nice to keep the metagaming opportunities to the minimum and allow the player to know when an enemy is using defense.

I think all of the effort it might take would be worth the end result. Active defense plays too little of a role, for me, in the rpgs I play. It's another way of empowering the players as well. Nothing screams freedom like giving up your attack to not die.

A choice of mechanics?

Choice is something I value in rpgs. However, most of the choices I make don't involve a mechanical difference, but involve a directional difference instead. For example: I need information from an npc. I can choose to use diplomacy or intimidation. This is a directional difference because my choice doesn't change the mechanics, it just affects which one is used. A benefit is that you can apply a lot of different flavor to any particular attempt. The downside being that nothing I say has any mechanic effect without the GM applying it.

So what am I talking about? I want the system to allow different options, without the need for the GM to gauge things (more than normal). Not only do I want to choose between intimidation and diplomacy, but when I choose intimidation, I want to have the option to risk the relationship with the npc for a bonus to the roll or to roll normally. All of this should be preset, though, and easy to apply.

Often, when playing rpgs, I feel disempowered when the only thing I get to do to save my character's life (or other important things) is roll a die. On the flipside, I don't want to be able to get what I want in every (or perhaps even most) situations by setting the stakes myself. I think what I want is a hybrid between a traditional and indie game. I see the industry (for the lack of a better term) heading further into the deep end of indie rpgs, though. I'd like to see a lot more sales numbers from both sides to get a better gauge of the situation.

Invisible wall of GMing?

Browsing various forums again, I came across a topic. The topic eventually discussed fudging the dice (ie: not using the result of the roll). Specifically, it was about character death, but I don't think that the account itself was important, just the subject. Fudging the dice ... versus tweaking the system.

Players (GM included, perhaps at the forefront) fudge the dice for different reasons and in different situations. A common fudge will involve character death. Most people don't want their character to die in a random battle with some kobolds that hold little importance over the story. Therefore, when the situation comes up, the GM will fudge the results. However, the process makes little sense to me.

If everyone wants to be able to die at any time or never wants to die, you have no problem. When people disagree about when characters should die, you have a problem. The problem, however, is likely with the player. Their goals just don't match up with rest of the groups (or sometimes the group itself will be split 3/3 or something). In situations like this, it might be best to find players who agree with you on the matter. Fudging is only going to make people mad when they find out.

When you have a group that all agrees that nobody should die to a random goblin, but that's not how the system works, you have another problem. This, however, isn't something that should just be ignored until you come across is and then fudged. All you have to do is tweak the system. Write down a rule "After initiative, the GM tells the players if they can die in the battle" Make it clear that, even if they won't die to some orcs that they will still be penalized for losing or generally doing dumb things (because they know they can't die). Big deal, so they didn't die. Now they are imprisoned by the gnolls, waiting their turn to be transformed into undead laborers... or Congrats! You took a daring risk in the middle of battle to save a fellow character... only without the risk. Thanks for the effort, but it isn't really heroic.

Don't be afraid to alter the system. You've seen it a million times on TV. Lying eventually leads to a bad situation. I fail to see any reason where fudging would be good, and tweaking would be bad.